Zelensky man, that the Ukrainian army has more experience in combat than any other, that is true, but that the German, French, Italian or Spanish armies are not made of paper either, and even more so if you combine them all.
this post was submitted on 16 Jan 2025
76 points (91.3% liked)
Europe
1774 readers
449 users here now
News and information from Europe πͺπΊ
(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)
Rules (2024-08-30)
- This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
- No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
- Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
- No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism.
- Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
- If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
- Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in !yurop@lemm.ee. (They're cool, you should subscribe there too!)
- Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
- No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)
(This list may get expanded when necessary.)
We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.
If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.
If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the mods: @federalreverse@feddit.org, @poVoq@slrpnk.net, or @anzo@programming.dev.
founded 6 months ago
MODERATORS
I'm guessing the point is that those armies are prepared for "WWII" style combat and not the cyberpunk drone-infestation that is the current war the Ukrainians are fighting.
The opposite is true. The fighting in Ukraine is retarded WWII combat but with drones being the artillery's smaller and (slightly - or for Russians: much more) precise sister. But exactly nobody but Russia (and Ukrainians mostly trained to the same (non-)standard back then) would fight an artillery based trench war in the first place in this day and age.
Contrary to the tales people tell this is NOT a modern war. It's obsolete bullshit caused by the inability of both sides to do better (Russians can't anyway and Ukraine is usually lacking equipment so hard that they can only move very slowly). Yes drones are a thing. And they will stay a thing in the future. But not like in Ukraine because that static fight with lackluster air-defense on both sides is very unique indeed.
Thank you for your opinion.
Do you know of any experts, perhaps like Anders Puck Nielsen, who agrees with you?
https://www.anderspucknielsen.dk/ - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8_NHuItXHY
... and all those military research organizations that are saying we need to change how we thought modern wars would be fought?
https://researchcentre.army.gov.au/library/occasional-papers/drones-modern-warfare
We constantly rethink how modern wars will be fought. That's a given. We should not however pretend that Ukraine is the model for the next one. Some aspects of it? Sure. Russia is giving us a useful live demonstration of their EW capabilties for example.
Realistically expecting a static artillery war however is rediculous. That's the result of Ukraine not having the equipment (and needing time to train soldiers for the new equipment they got from the west). So Russia had half a year to mine the shit out of newly occupied territory while digging a million trenches. Also the result of having a tiny and old air force compared to NATO forces and no chance to get any form of air control (and yes, we have actually seen in other theaters how well air-defense bought from Russia fares in reality).
You are probably also assuming we need to learn to defend against masses of cheap drones for years to come? Well, we don't. Because there is no scenario with drones being launched against us over year as the sane reaction is a counter attack on the launch sites (again a very Ukraine-specific problem as they lacked equipment to do so, then the permission to use them deep inside Russia, and thus needed to develop stuff able to do so from scratch while at war).
Read up on the UK Ukraine deal signed today? Anything about drones in it you reacted to?
Its something pretty oblivious, or do you need a expert opinion to believe that Ukraine can't rival the US military?
Ai and Drones change the way of war but any real NATO conflict will be nothing like the War in Ukraine.
Just look at how many Warship where sunk by the Houthis and compare that to the Ukraine.
So how do you expect modern war between similarly strong forces to go differently without either side gaining air superiority?
The moment you cannot move fast, digging in is the obvious choice.
In fact I don't expect any side without air superiority. We have seen how well Russian-made air-defense works against modern NATO equipment in other theaters. We also have seen how well it actually works in Ukraine/Russia against missiles or even cheap drones (to the point that Russia "intercepting missiles" with the intended target has become a meme).
Russia had more than half a year to dig in and build a billion trenches in their newly occupied territory because Ukraine lacked the equipment, lacked the soldiers (especially those trained on new western equipment that took far to long to get there) and even today still lacks the air forces to heavy pressure those fortifications.
On the other hand we have also seen the incredible success of Ukraine when applying modern mobile tactics in areas where they did not have that time.
So why would I expect a static, artillery heavy trench warfare without much air support?
digging in with equipment that can defend you is a lot different than digging in without it ..
I wonder if we are going to see the re-introduction of gun SHORAD systems. They have been phased out or just not really developed since the 70s/80s, and cheap drones are expensive to kill with missiles. Especially if they don't emit enough heat for heatseekers and are too small and low to the ground for radar homing ones.
Skyranger has already been bought by Germany, Denmark and Austria, with Hungary, Lithuania and the US being interessted. The German IFV Puma has also been given the ability to use its main gun against drones. So it seems like a lot of countries are very interessted in it. There are also laser based systems.
The german military is literally paper, lol.
But the paper meets all the detailed specifications. The specifications may not be suitable for military use, but they are met.
I believe that russian army as it is now won't be a great problem in attack, they are pretty exhausted in terms of equipment, and old soviet stockpiles are gone mostly. But they still have a lot of long range weapons and they make enough of them. So they can continue waging war and buy politicians that will try to become friends with such great and majestic country.
The greatest threat Russia and Putin pose is the level they've compromised politicians throughout the EU, and the fact they've already successfully compromised big tech oligarchs (now cleared for complicit full scale psychological warfare), who are all bending the knee to fascism so quickly its as though capitalism is destined to result in fascism...
Europe has no chance against Russia without Ukrainian military
And yet another politician who has fallen to his own propaganda narrative.
Ukraine defending Europe is a nice tale and from a moral standpoint regarding support for them not totally untrue as they indeed reduce Russian abilities. But the EU alone spends more than 3 times as much on their military than Russia is doing with their war time economy now and has more than 2 million trained soldiers (actually trained, not Russian meat told which side of the rusty rifle should point to the front... also not getting a minimal crash course like Ukrainians to then have to figure it out on their own) in peace time and before reserves.
So go home, you are obviously drunk.
He knows he's fucked if the US doesn't keep fueling the war machine, but I doubt the MIC would let Trump end the war even if he wanted to.
I also believe that the war would end sooner and more favorably towards Ukraine, but to the headline: He is right, but two countries in Europe have nukes.
You have to wonder if there's a single Ukrainian alive who would now willingly give up nuclear weapons, if they had them again. One of the tragic side effects of all this is the harm being done to countries' willingness to disarm in the long term.
I wouldn't fault them for not doing so. I also wouldn't fault Ukraine for pursuing nuclear deterrence as well. Europe has, frankly, failed to properly equip Ukraine to defend itself with conventional means.
Are you basically asking if there are Ukrainians with about 2 working brain cells left?
Nukes are totally useless there. What would Ukaine have done? Thrown a nuke at Donbas the moment Russia mass moved troops out of there to annihilate parts of the territory they claim for themselves? Or shot a nuclear armed missile at Moscow in a total escalation probably triggering mutual large scale nuclear destruction?
Ukraine with nuclear weapons would have done exactly the same against an Russian invasion as Russia did when they began to lose territory in Kursk... nothing while loudly talking about how they totally could do it any day now... in hopes some retards in Europe believe that tale.
Yes, nukes are totally useless as a deterrent. Cool take, wish all the nuclear powers were on the same page.
Nukes are very useful... to deter global powers from waging global wars or to keep someone from full out destroying your country. That's what kept global powers from waging full out wars for the better part of a century now and stick to small scale conflicts and proxy wars.
They are however indeed useless in a conflict with a direct neighbour in an area of only several hundred kilometers rught at your border. Tactical nukes will not be used out of the blue because it instantly escalates to a global war then. They will also not be used on territory you plan to occupy and use for yourself. Strategic long range nukes are a deterrent to not let a conflict escalate to a global war, sure.
Are you assuming that Ukraine would have nuked Moscow after warning them against occopying parts of their territory? Then you are probably now wondering why the hell Russia did not nuke Kyiv when they invaded the Kursk region... Yeah, exactly. Because you simply don't use nukes close to home ever unless you can live with the next stage of global nuclear war. Not the small ones because their value does not compare to the massive negatives of the following escalation, not the big ones because that nuclear war is literally the end. Not only for those who started it.
Russia has consistently talked about launching nukes in response to various red lines, and their sabre rattling has been effective in moderating everyone's tone even when it was blatant lies.
I don't take seriously the idea of either side actually using nukes, and I never suggested it. The point I was making was about the damage it does to disarmament efforts when, say, a smaller nation gives up its nukes in exchange for assurances and is then invaded by one of the very signatories of those assurances.